III 
THE SETTLING OF JURISDICTION 
The latter part of the seventeenth century saw an intensification of mercantilist 
and imperialist trends in England; to the trading classes all aspects of 
English government and colonial administration were to be subordinated to 
the interests of commerce. 1 One of the measures urged by spokesmen for this 
pressure group was the creation of a Council of Trade more effectually to 
secure business interests, particularly in foreign and colonial fields. 2 This 
proposal gained favor as discontent increased among the trading interests because 
of the heavy losses sustained by English trade and shipping during the 
hostilities with France which commenced in 1689. 3 Further, those hostile to 
the incumbent regime seized upon these losses as a manifest neglect of the 
national welfare and even as a design to favor Dutch competitors. 4 In 1695 
action on these discontents was foreshadowed by an increased amount of 
pamphlet literature, perhaps inspired, urging parliamentary intervention in 
the field of foreign commerce and advocating the establishment of a Council 
by Parliament for the promotion and improvement of trade. 5 
William 111 did not remain oblivious of the demands of the merchants and 
of the need for administrative reform. By December, 1695, the formation of a 
Council of Trade had been decided upon by the King and his advisers, and 
the patent was ready for the seals, but the King delayed taking the final step. 6 
On December 12, 1695, Parliament assumed the initiative, and the House of 
Commons debated the creation of such a Council nominated by the legislative; 
taken by surprise, the Ministry was at great trouble to secure an adjournment 
7 Reports were abroad following the action of the House of Commons 
that a Commission for Trade and Plantations had been appointed by 
1 1 Osgood, The American Colonies in the 
Eighteenth Century (1924), 131. 
2 4 Andrews, Colonial Period, 280-84. 
3 1 Osgood, op. cit., 127-28. Although for the 
most part these losses were attributable to the 
deplorable condition of the Admiralty (4 
Andrews, op. cit., 275-79), the Lords Committee 
cannot escape the charge of lax administration 
in matters under their charge; 
see 1 Osgood, op. cit., 121 et seq.; cf. 2 
MacPherson, Annals of Commerce, Manufacture, 
Fisheries, and Navigation (1805), 
681; CSP, Dom., 1691-92, 543. At this time 
virtually the whole English administrative 
system was in a state o£ collapse (CSP, Col., 
1693-96, xlvi). 
4 2 Burnet, History of His Own Time (i734)> 
163; 5 Pari. Hist. Eng. (ed. Cobbett, 1809), 
977- 
5 1 Osgood, op. cit., 131-32; 4 Andrews, op. 
cit., 282-84. 
6 1 King, Life of John Locke (1830), 42-43! 
2 Fox Bourne, Life of Locke (1876), 349; cf. 
Lees, Parliament and the Proposal for a Council 
of Trade, 1695-96, 54 EHR 38, 49, 59. 
T 2 Fox Bourne, op. cit., 443; 3 Luttrell, A 
Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs 
(1857), 560-61. This action would not only